Global Warming??

Here in the upper Midwest, we're used to change. There is a saying that, "If you don't like the weather, just wait a few hours - it will change." This past winter, we had a huge snowstorm in early December, a green Christmas, several days of nearly 50 degrees in January, a week of sub-zero days in a cold February, 70 degree days in March, followed by snow and near-blizzard conditions in April - a little crazy?...sure...unprecedented?...not at all. This is pointed out not as a complaint, but simply to stress the fact that this is just what common folks call weather. It used to just be something that you chatted with friends and family about, and maybe complained about a little bit, but otherwise simply accepted because there was nothing you could do about it.

Many in the scientific community, though, have become so impressed with themselves that they are arrogantly posturing that human beings have something to do with it. Five years ago, UN scientists issued a major report on global warming...none of the doomsday predictions it contained proved close to accurate. Regardless, this past February they simply issued a new report, packed with new exaggerated forecasts for the media to fawn over and promote. The new report claims that warming has been occurring for the last 50 years...conveniently forgetting that, in the 1970's, this same scientific community was concerned with global cooling and the potential onset of another ice age (snow even fell in Miami in January 1977!). Their first comprehensive report "looked backward" only far enough to conveniently ignore the Medieval Warming Period - a climatologic period not unlike what we are currently experiencing. It should also be evident that even a slight increase in solar activity (which has been occurring) easily has enough power to raise average global temperatures by the tiny amount that has been documented.

So, what is the motivation behind the scientific community today? It is certainly not national pride, as it was during the development of the atomic bomb or the space race - America is usually painted as the villain in these studies. At risk of being cynical, it's also doubtful that it is genuine concern for mankind, either...although some have probably convinced themselves that's their reason. It is simple exploitation of a field of study that has captured public interest, where there is no chance of either success or failure, but there is the potential for endless research and funding. Many working in this field are supported by tax dollars; most of them are operating in our universities and passing the religion on to our kids. Most are also politically liberal, inclined to embrace the idea of bigger government, more control and regulation, and less personal freedom. They also convince themselves (since they are all very smart people) that they are simply right about this. The last remaining step is to shout down anyone who dares to disagree, have their research discredited or de-funded, leaving a single voice of consensus.

A recent study suggests that the basic process of the formation of snowflakes in the atmosphere causes ozone depletion. That might explain why the "ozone hole" occurred over the pole - it is cold and snows a lot there. Now what should mankind do about this problem? It's been snowing on this earth far longer than humans have been around, using aerosol cans or driving SUVs. It is always interesting how one group of scientists never seems to look at the "findings" of their peers in order to connect the dots.

In the analysis of this subject, basic scientific principles, like that of theory- experimentation-proof-conclusion have been abandoned. The conclusion has already been drawn and scattered bits of data are being gathered and presented as support for it. The data and analysis being used to develop these theories is so limited and subject to so many various interpretations that it is irresponsible to make conclusions and take action based on it. The scientists tell us that the planet is billions of years old...yet they have less than two hundred years worth of reliable climatic data...still they are seeking to force all of humanity to change behavior based on these conclusions. They tell us that in the past there have been ice ages with glaciers covering vast portions of the earth, and at least one warm period when dinosaurs roamed most of those same areas...yet today, with only a slight fluctuation in average temperature, it is concluded to be the fault of the human race. It is like analyzing a strand of DNA and then claiming to be able to tell, from the tiny bits of data, the person's exact height, weight, personality traits, hopes and dreams.

The whole concept is simply implausible...that we humans can affect the climate, or nature itself, in any substantial way. We used to be humble enough to accept our miniscule place in the world. Now, the environmental zealots would have us all believe that, if we only used a little less electricity, drove a smaller car, moved a few miles closer to work, or maybe just planted a tree or two, we could reverse the "effects" of global warming. This is nothing but "feel-good" psychology...the earth's climate has undergone substantial and continual change over all of history...and not as a result of human activity. We have already spent billions of dollars making changes to consumer products to eliminate aerosols, to change the way plastic foams are manufactured, to decrease pollutant emissions...and the activists still scream just as loudly and simply move on to the next target. Perhaps if we think about it, apply some basic common sense and most importantly, some humility...we will be able to dampen the conclusions being drawn and slow the rush-to-action that always follows.

This opposing viewpoint - that global warming is not caused by man - is finally starting to attract some attention. For many years, the debate was the sole domain of the liberal intellectuals...the rest of society just sort of smiled at them and casually dismissed their ideas as well-intentioned but merely conceptual. Recently, as politicians have started to get on board and regulations have been passed, society has begun to take notice of the impact these ideas will have on the costs of basic goods and services. No longer just theories, political conservatives have realized that these ideas require rebuttal. One of these voices is Christopher Horner, a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the author of the book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" (Regnery Publishing, February 2007. ISBN 1596985011ISBN 978-1596985018). He compiled the following list of ten myths that have been perpetuated by the global warming alarmists (the summaries are my own - his excerpts can be found at www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19468):

10. The U.S. is going it alone on the Kyoto Protocol and global warming. Not so - over 150 other countries, with most of the world's population, are outside of the agreement. Even those that have signed on to be part of it are not really living up to its ambitious goals.

9. Global-warming proposals are about the environment. The true aim, by severely restricting energy usage, is to "level the playing field" between rich and poor, in terms of both individuals and countries.

8. Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor. Climate and weather patterns have always fluctuated, as they always will. The best hope, through development of infrastructure and institutions, is to be better able to deal with the effects.

7. Global warming means more frequent, more severe storms. The best example of this distortion is the hurricane season of 2006 - predicted to be as bad as or worse than 2005 (which brought 27 named storms) - in reality, there were only nine named storms and not a single hurricane hit the United States.

6. Global warming has doomed the polar bears! In actuality, they're only having trouble in areas of the Arctic that are presently cooling.

5. Climate change is raising the sea levels. Once again, this is an inaccurate statement simply because there is, and cannot be, a "normal" level to use as a benchmark. Since we are no longer in an ice age, it stands to reason that the sea levels would be near a relative high point.

4. The glaciers are melting! There is no doubt that some are; at one point, scientists tell us, they covered vast portions of North America. However, they neglect to also report that there are glaciers that are growing, just in other locations.

3. Climate was stable until man came along. This is a hard one to sell, even for the die-hard environmentalists. The UN scientists, to create the so-called "hockey stick" chart for public consumption, had to completely ignore the presence of the last warming period.

2. The science is settled -- CO₂ causes global warming. Historically, atmospheric CO₂ often increases after warming. In the past century, the 1930s were a period of relative warming, the 1960s cooling and the 1990s warming again. However, the recorded levels of CO₂ showed a steady increase throughout - doesn't seem like a correlation at all.

1. It's hot in here! This is where another baseline argument comes in. Relative to the 1970s (or 1200 A.D.), it is relatively warm; relative to the 1930s (or 1000 A.D.) it is relatively cool.

The fact that these issues have been lightly debated, if at all, means that there is much work to be done. The environmental zealots have an established political agenda, feel like they're doing "righteous" work, and ignore everything that is contrary to their already-formed conclusions. Conservatives can no longer afford to leave them, and their willing accomplices in the media and scientific community, preach to the public unchallenged. Unfortunately, conservatives have come late to this debate...and many people apparently no longer feel there even is anything to debate. They have embraced the one acceptable train of thought and any skepticism or other ideas are ridiculed and shouted down. This debate definitely does need to occur...or else humanity will be led down a path of economic destruction, expending money and effort, sacrificing other potential advancements, not to mention life's happiness, in an endless pursuit of trying to control the uncontrollable.